March 2020Vol. 21, No. 2Print issueSpotlight on Ensuring Meaningful Family Time

Issue Spotlight

• The Judge's Role in Ensuring Meaningful Family Time

  The Judge's Role in Ensuring Meaningful Family Time

  Written by Judge R. Michael Key, Troup County Juvenile Court and Troup County Adult Felony Drug Court, LaGrange, GA
  
  While acknowledging the importance of making individualized decisions in cases where reunification is the permanency goal for a child, the failure to provide meaningful family time between the child and the child's parents, in and of itself, is a failure to make reasonable efforts to reunify. In many jurisdictions, family time will be no more meaningful than the expectations set by the presiding judge. It is important for judges to set clear expectations for family time and to model its importance by allowing sufficient court time to effectively exercise judicial oversight and to promote ownership of family time by all parties and attorneys in each case. Judicial oversight should be exercised to address the necessity for supervision, frequency, duration, and quality.

  Presumptive Unsupervised Family Time

  Even after appropriate inquiry, supervised family time immediately following removal from the home, and for some time following the preliminary protective hearing, will likely be appropriate in a significant number of cases. However, the presumption should be that unsupervised family time is in the child's best interest, and supervision should be required only if the child welfare agency can establish, by at least a preponderance of the evidence presented in court, that supervised family time is necessary for the protection of the child and that unsupervised family time is not in the child's best interest. The issue of supervision should be considered at the first hearing and at every hearing and review thereafter. Even where supervised family time is initially appropriate, there comes a point when, if the family cannot visit unsupervised, consideration needs to be given as to whether reunification is still an appropriate permanency goal or whether the case plan needs to be revised and additional services should be provided.

  Frequency and Duration

  Child development experts say that daily contact between a parent and a child should occur to maximize bonding and attachment. Even considering the resource challenges in child welfare, it is not unreasonable for the judge to adopt minimum standards as to the frequency and duration for family time. Georgia's family time practice guide (see this issue's Strategies and Tools for Practice section) makes the following family time recommendation: 1.5 to 2 hours, three times per week, for children from birth to 3 years; 2 or more hours, at least two times per week, for children ages 3 to 12 years; and 1 or more hours, one or two times per week, for children ages 12 to 18 years. While there are certainly factors in individual cases that make the provision of this level of family time difficult, any downward deviation from these recommendations should be limited, supported by evidence, and approved by the judge.

  Quality

  Family time should be as natural and family-like as possible, both in terms of setting and dynamics. It is important for the judge to monitor quality as carefully as frequency and duration. Giving families the very best opportunity to maintain parental relationships contributes to positive outcomes for children removed from their birth families in terms of child well-being and successful and timely reunification.

  Incarcerated Parents

  The narrative changes when family time is viewed through the eyes of the child. Nowhere is that truer than when talking about family time with incarcerated parents. Instead of asking why incarcerated parents should be allowed to visit with their children in foster care, ask why children in foster care should not be allowed to visit with their incarcerated parents. The right to visit is valued more when it is expressed as the child's right. Considering the negative impact even a short-term loss of contact has on children, denying family time because parents are incarcerated inflicts significant trauma on the children and undermines the reunification plan. For an article on family time between children and their incarcerated parents, go to https://georgiacourtsjournal.org/a-very-special-thanksgiving-at-the-troup-county-jail/.

  Milestones

  With effective case planning, implementation, and monitoring, the time frames for moving from supervised family time (when required) to unsupervised family time to the transition home should be reasonably predictable within some acceptable range. Hope drives reunification, and it is hard for families to maintain hope when they have to look too far down the line. Hope survives best when gains can be made and celebrated in shorter periods. Milestones can be set so that, if parents work their case plans and make appropriate progress, there is an expectation of moving from supervised visitation to reunification at targeted intervals.

  It Takes a Village

  As with many other challenges in the child welfare arena, other stakeholders see family time as something for which the child welfare agency is responsible and fail to accept their own legal and ethical responsibilities. Attorneys for parents, attorneys, guardians ad litem for children, and court-appointed special advocates should hold the child welfare agency and the judge accountable for ensuring that children in foster care have meaningful family time with their parents, but they should also be full partners in making that happen. These advocates can sometimes identify nongovernmental resources to allow for more family time and continuously monitor compliance with the family-time plan and milestones. 

  Can Family Time Be Expanded Today?

  The enhanced guidelines remind us to frequently ask what is preventing the child from returning home safely at every hearing and review. It should be the same with family time. Waiting until the next hearing to consider expanding family time delays permanency and prolongs the harm done by separating children from their families.  

  This article is not intended to be a research-based authoritative work; rather it is intended to spur thoughts and conversations about the role of judges and other stakeholders in ensuring meaningful family time for children in foster care.

  For support for the positions contained herein and for guidance on how to implement meaningful family time, see the Georgia Family Time Practice Guide: A Guide to Providing Appropriate Family Time for Children in Foster Care at http://www.gacip.org/family-time-practice-guide/ or contact Judge Michael Key at mkey@troupco.org.
   

• How Family Visit Coaching Is Making a Difference in San Diego County

  How Family Visit Coaching Is Making a Difference in San Diego County

  Written by Kimberly Giardina, director, County of San Diego Health and Human Services Agency Child Welfare Services, and Jorge Cabrera, senior director, San Diego Field Office, Casey Family Programs

  Navigating past the toy aisles without a toddler meltdown can be a challenge for any parent shopping at a big-box store. In San Diego County, that trip to the local Walmart can double as a supervised visit with a coach who supports parents in practicing their parenting skills as they work to be reunified with their child.

  "We might start at the child welfare office, and then we move to a park or library," explained Phyllis Carlson, a family visit coach with Home Start, one of four community-based organizations that contracts with the County of San Diego to provide family visit coaching (FVC). "Then, we could move from a park to a library to Walmart. The visit coach can work with the parent to figure out how they can go past a toy aisle without temper tantrums or the parent feeling like they have to buy something they can't afford."

  Since 2015, the county has offered family visit coaching to families with complex child welfare needs as part of its title IV-E waiver demonstration project. The county was so pleased with the results that it decided to expand FVC countywide, even though its waiver expired in September 2019.

  "We were looking at promising practices to implement as our IV-E waiver demonstration," said Laura Krzywicki, chief of agency operations for child welfare services at the county's health and human services agency. "We really wanted to focus on how we can improve our reunification in 12 and 18 months; how do we reunify kids faster?"

  The National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) evaluated the San Diego program—the first such evaluation of the visit coaching model developed by child welfare and juvenile justice consultant Marty Beyer—and its effects on family reunification, reunification timeliness, and parenting efficacy.

  "This model differs from the traditional supervised-visits approach used by most child welfare agencies in that parents interact with a coach during visits who focuses on the family's strengths and the children's needs," the evaluation explained.

  The county hoped to look at its rates of reunification at 18 months, timeliness of reunification, and how often children reentered care.

  According to Krzywicki, the county has not had enough time to evaluate whether children's reentry into care has been impacted. However, the NCCD evaluation found that 30 percent of families who were referred to FVC were reunified within 18 months if parents did not participate in the program compared with 47 percent for families with parents who completed the coaching program. Even parents who participated but did not complete the program had a higher reunification rate (32 percent) within 18 months.

  The evaluation found that family visit coaching did not speed up the reunification process, but it did show a statistically significant improvement in parenting skills. With family visit coaching, parents meet with a coach before, during, and after supervised visits with their children. Together, they choose where to meet and decide what they want to accomplish.

  "With visit coaching, it gives the parents opportunities to visit in a natural setting that's not in a child welfare office," Krzywicki said. "(Coaches) spend a lot of time helping the parent prepare for the trauma-related needs that come from visitation. Traditionally, in supervised visits when there's a removal, when the child first sees the parent, there might be behavioral problems. They might act out. The coach prepares the parents for this and how to respond in a trauma-informed way." After the visit, the coach and parents discuss what went well and what they can do better.

  Coaches have a small caseload, which gives them flexibility to meet family needs. They, together with the parents, invest in 1- to 3-hour visits, one to three times a week, for 3 to 6 months.

  The county is discussing how to expand the program beyond the 650 children served by the four community-based organizations. With support from Casey Family Programs, the county is consulting with Beyer on next steps. The county is hopeful that family visit coaching, which NCCD calls "promising," will be included as an intervention in the Family First Prevention Services Act Clearinghouse.

  One surprising result of the NCCD evaluation was that social workers did not refer families to FVC until much later in their engagement (an average of 7.5 months from removal). As they consider expansion, the county will look at policies and practices that could support earlier referrals, according to Krzywicki.

  Carlson, who became a coach in 2018 after retiring as a social worker for child welfare services, sees a distinct difference in her new role.

  "I am very much focused on developing a relationship with (parents), helping them develop a trusting relationship with their child, and helping them find ways of being protective," she said. "I have found that through reframing some of the situations they share with us, we can break down some of their barriers/resistance with their social worker and with the system, and this helps propel them toward reunification, ultimately restoring their parental role."

  Parents who were interviewed for the NCCD evaluation said they preferred the coaching format. When asked about traditional visitation supervision, one parent said, "Oh, it made me feel uncomfortable. She didn't talk or interact. I didn't know what she thought about how I was doing."

  Carlson also sees the impact family visit coaching has on parents. "In the beginning, clients come and they're angry, they feel a little lost, they feel confused about how the system works ... and they often don't really understand the connection between the roles they played that led them there and the services that are being provided to them," she said. "As parents move forward with their case, they can't wait to call us with their accomplishments."

  Coaches also help families build their own support networks. "By modeling a relationship that is trusting and supportive, they can go out and find relationships that have similar characteristics so they can support themselves," Carlson said.

  By offering a more natural setting and working with parents to manage their sadness or anger, coaching makes family time more meaningful, Krzywicki said. "As long as you have kids in out-of-home care, this is a program you could be looking into."

  The Administration for Children, Youth and Families recently issued an information memorandum that includes the County of San Diego's approach to family visit coaching, along with research, best practices, resources, and recommendations for providing children and youth in out-of-home care safe, meaningful, and high-frequency family time.

  To learn more about family visit coaching, visit www.visitcoachingcommunity.com.
   

• Are We Sincere About Valuing Families?

  Are We Sincere About Valuing Families?

  Written by Jerry Milner and David Kelly

  If we are sincere in our statements that family comes first—that families matter and belong together—our child welfare system is the proving ground we have before us. If we are sincere in our proclamations that foster care is a temporary option of last resort, we must do everything we can to prevent unnecessary removal and support and enhance the parent-child relationship when a child is in foster care. If we are sincere in our commitment to follow federal law, we must do all in our power to strengthen and protect the integrity of the parent-child bond while a child or youth is in foster care. As a field, this requires all of us to view foster care as more than a "placement" and far more than a bed. For the vast majority of children and youth in foster care, foster care can and should be a vehicle to promote healthy reunification—the most direct way to follow the law.

  If the goal of foster care is to provide for temporary care while a child achieves reunification, why do we continue to hear young people recount their histories with statements such as, "I was in care for 18 years with 18 placements," or "17 years with 17 placements," or "12 years with 21 placements"? Why do we continue to hear about young people "emancipating" from foster care to return to their families of origin when agencies have done little or nothing to prepare the young person or the family for getting back together? Why do we leave familial and particular parental resources unsupported, undeveloped, and underused?

  What should we make of instances where a parent in recovery may go months, a year, or longer without seeing her infant that was removed at birth due to positive toxicity?

  Why do we continue to see and hear standard procedures in courts and agencies that assume parent-child visits will be limited and supervised and where parents must effectively earn greater visiting privileges? We talk about the importance of parent-child relationships. We have laws and regulations that speak to the need to "normalize" the foster care experience. Yet, our actions often speak louder than our words. 

  Our words say that foster care is temporary, supports parent-child relationships, and meets children's needs for safety, permanency, and well-being. Our actions too often say that foster care will go on for years, that we hold parents at arms distance or alienate them, and that physical safety trumps both permanency and well-being. How do we reconcile the contrast between our words and our actions?

  We can begin by taking family time seriously.

  Without time together, how do we expect parents and children to grow and heal together?

  Without time together, how do we expect parents to practice parenting and children to learn routines and structure and feel cared for in uninterrupted ways.

  The simple answer is that it is not logical or reasonable to expect separated families to reunify unless we prioritize and value making sure they spend meaningful time together.

  In our time in the field, we have each encountered situations where courts and agencies treat family time—all too often referred to as "visitation"—as reward or punishment. We have seen it used as a privilege a parent must earn, much in the way an inmate earns privileges in the penal system. We have seen visitation suspended or canceled when a judge or a social worker feels a parent has not complied with expected behavior or case-planned goals. We have seen visitation cancelled due to positive drug tests days or weeks before scheduled visitation. And, in our travels to now 42 states in nearly 3 years, we have heard from attorneys, judges, social workers, parents, and young people working in the system or with lived experience that such practices remain commonplace today.

  This needs to stop.

  Absent an immediate danger, we should regard family time as a critical reasonable effort to reunify, and we must prioritize it. Research makes clear that there is a strong relationship between high-frequency, meaningful family time and reunification.

  Failure to treat family time as a critical reasonable effort to reunify is a threat to child and family well-being and an impediment to permanency. In order for family time to actually support the child's and family's well-being and promote permanency, it must be more than an arranged hour or two of time between a parent and child in a sterile environment where neither feels free to interact naturally.  Family time should provide opportunities for parents to carry out parenting responsibilities and for children to see their parents as people who care about them and are trying to meet their needs. Family time should provide the most normalized environment that is as safe as possible given the abnormality of foster care itself.

  When we ensure that normalized family time is an essential part of the foster care experience and fully engage parents in the process, we provide them with hope that reunification is possible, that parenting can be successful, and that they can surmount the difficulties they may face in dealing with whatever brought their children into foster care. Without such hope, parents run the risk of becoming overwhelmed, discouraged, and disengaged and believing that they cannot actually meet their children's needs. This, in turn, can lead to the circumstances behind the stories we hear—spending 17 or 18 years in foster care. When we engage parents actively in the lives of their children while they are in foster care, we create opportunities for decreasing the trauma of separation, for faster routes to permanency, and for healthier children and young people who feel loved and cared for despite the difficult circumstances of their lives.

  When we begin seeing parents as partners who care about the well-being of their children instead of pariahs, we can change the dynamic that has historically clouded visitation—now referred to as family time—and change the experience for children and young people in care.  Family time can help us get there.
  
   

• Delaware Visit Hosts Ensure Quality Family Time for Children in Foster Care

  Delaware Visit Hosts Ensure Quality Family Time for Children in Foster Care

  Written by Rachael Neff, L.S.W., director of special court programs, Delaware Family Court, and JoAnn Santangelo, court improvement program coordinator, Delaware Family Court

  Practice changes can be difficult to make. But with the right team, shared goals, and long-term planning, change can happen. Leadership from key child welfare stakeholders in Delaware decided that improving visitation and family time practices was important to our work with children and families. It has taken years of work, but through thoughtful collaboration we have made changes in our visitation practices that benefit our families.

  How Our Work Started

  The roundtable discussion at a state team planning meeting in Washington, DC, was one of the first steps that laid the groundwork for improving visitation and family time practices in Delaware. Judges and leadership from the state child welfare agency engaged in frank discussions about areas for strategic improvement in our child welfare work. Informed by data and an assessment of courtroom practice, the team determined that more could be done to ensure that families spent time with one another when children had to be placed in foster care. From this smaller team meeting, a larger multidisciplinary workgroup convened and slow changes began to happen.

  Defining Goals and Seeking Support

  The court improvement program sought out technical assistance from the Center for Family Representation (CFR) in New York City to support this work. CFR is known for their cornerstone advocacy approach to family representation. It provided strong guidance and acted as a sounding board for Delaware as we determined what steps to take to improve our work. The technical assistance allowed our interdisciplinary team of state agencies, attorneys, providers, and the court to further discuss common goals. We wanted families to visit in more natural and home-like environments and to visit more frequently. We also recognized that more visitation could lead to a greater likelihood of reunification. At the conclusion of one of our technical assistance trainings with CFR, it was determined that creating visit host guidelines would be critical to moving the work forward in Delaware.

  Leaders and Messengers

  A time-limited workgroup convened and drafted the Delaware visit host guidelines. These guidelines were created to ensure that parents had greater opportunities to visit their children when the children are placed in foster care. Our workgroup emphasized that separating children from parents is a traumatic experience and finding ways to maintain a bond with the child and parent was critical. Visit hosts are individuals who are identified by families to help support their visits without the same level of involvement as an assigned agency worker.

  The workgroup succeeded in crafting guidelines tailored to current Delaware visitation policy, and the guidelines were subsequently issued to statewide partners. Completing the visit host guidelines was a paramount step in the work; however, messaging the work was another critical task. Throughout the process, the court improvement program stayed engaged with leadership from the child welfare agency, provider agencies, and others to move the work forward. Without stakeholder engagement, the effort would have failed. A judge needed to be involved so that communication could be brought back to the court. State agency leadership needed to be involved so that communication could make its way throughout the agency. State child welfare agency director Trenee Parker was central to moving the work forward. She ensured her staff understood the importance of visiting. Attorneys for children and parents stayed involved so that questions about the practice could be asked in the courtroom. Parent attorney Stephanie Reid was a leader in the project and has seen the impact of visit hosts firsthand with her clients.

  Highlights from her work include the following:

  In one recent and ongoing case, a single mother not only hit the ground running on her case plan elements but was able to identify a family friend who was willing and able to serve as a visit host to help increase family time between mother and son. While reunification remains on the near horizon, the infusion of the visit host dynamic has allowed the family to spend meaningful time together that would not have otherwise been possible, including Christmas Day, on the weekends and evenings, and on the child's birthday.

  Reid commented, "the concept of visit hosts has been thankfully warmly received in Delaware, and we strive to identify at least one individual per case that could fulfill this vital role. I have found, personally, that cases involving visit hosts carry a different semblance —one of greater collaboration, heightened respect for the parent's role, and reduced (unnecessary) tension and adversity between the parties."

  Partners to Pilot the Work

  The guidelines were utilized to implement a visit host pilot project in conjunction with two participating foster care provider agencies. The contracted provider agencies engaged families immediately upon the child entering care to determine appropriate visit host opportunities. Although state child welfare stakeholders, including our court, agency, and program providers, had been involved in the visit host pilot, we found that workers with direct contact to the child and family were not as engaged in the concept and that training at all levels was needed.

  Training and Ongoing Partnership

  In order to address this training gap, a statewide training was held on the impact of visitation on reunification, including a review of the current agency visitation policy and how visit hosts can be incorporated into current practice. The template for this training was drafted with significant support from the Capacity Building Center for Courts in coordination with the court improvement program. Agency and program provider staff were asked to join the training and present their firsthand experience with the visit host process. While research and policy can speak to the why of enhanced visitation practice, those doing the work are the ones who discuss how these practices will be implemented.

  Where We Are Now

  Several years ago, visitation and family time were not receiving the attention they deserved in Delaware. We now have courtrooms where judges, attorneys, state agency workers, and provider workers talk about the quality and frequency of visitation and how visit hosts positively impact their families. Continuous quality improvement and collaboration were the driving forces to ensure that Delaware was able to incorporate a family-friendly, natural, and flexible visitation practice for children and families into current policy. By identifying our needs, developing a theory of change, implementing change and evaluation, we were able to introduce visit hosts not as a new initiative but another resource for child welfare stakeholders.

  There were excellent attorneys, judges, and state agency leadership in Delaware who championed this issue and moved the work forward. Staying engaged in the long run with provider agencies and a dedicated workgroup was also a key to our success. Without these beginning conversations and an openness to try something new, change would have been impossible. Leaders were willing to challenge existing practices and ask where we could improve our work. There is more work to do in Delaware, but our practice shift is well underway to finding ways for families to spend more time together when they must be apart.